About this Show





San Francisco, CA, USA

Comcast Cable

Channel 89 (615 MHz)






Fung 11, Mr. Sanchez 8, Hwang 7, San Francisco 3, Hurtado 3, Honda 2, Thatqd 1, Lazarus 1, Pagination 1, La 1, Nale 1, Ann Thornton 1, Appellantm 1, Chiu 1, Hoffman 1, Scott Sanchez 1, Alan Sowle 1, Deborah Stott 1, Mr. Sanchezo 1, Hwang Scott Sanchez 1,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  SFGTV    [untitled]  

    December 13, 2012
    6:00 - 6:30pm PST  

month, i askedq send out the 311 notification because your decision that night was m extend the variance, to thefa that was coming up, 31 days after yourg your decision was -- he made right decision for the extension. i advised him, and mr. nale's disability attorney advised him in a letter the next day that he should immediately send out that 311 notification. he did not. and that is the event that we're here to talk about that is a new item for0n have a rehearing tonight. mr. sanchez said that it was an emont impossibility for there to be a 311 triggered dr hearing because he could not act to send out the 311 notification until
your board had a notice of decision in order, something that usually takes weeks to happen. and he felt it was an impossibility. but this ignores the fact that we had asked mr. sanchez and his scaf to send -- staff to send out a 311>e notification approximately six weeks before the hearing that you made your decision. we got a notification back that the planning department wouldf2 not make a 311 notification because an appeal had been filed by the neighbor on the factñ m!,75 extension was granted to 30 days beyond your nexto%(ú0n hearing. we also filed an appeabh::zp" we filed an appeal just to preserve our rights. we got a e-mail from the planning staffer, acknowledged5hnnnp by mr. sanchez saying our appeal did not prevent the jt the 311 notification to4z
however, his position was that the appeal by the neighbor did in fact prohibit him from sending out theeqb!6!ñ 311 notification. i think that was an error. there's no reason that if one party's request for a hearing before you didn'teh 8hñ stop him from sending a 311 notification, that the otherpjpi? parties should have. let me give you anea5 example. if he had sent out that 311 notification right after the dr brought by the neighbor, then withinqíd! 30 days ofkl pz that appeal, which would be before your hearing, the neighbor would have made the dr appeal. and the zoning administrator could have ruled that he'll take that dr appeal he won't schedule the hearing before the commission, he'll acknowledge the appeal that there is a right to a hearing, but he won't schedule it pending your decision on the neighbor's request for you to rule that noza extension should have been givenu$: to my client at all. there was no reason why the
zoning administrator couldn't have started that 311 process the day2njyafter the appeal by the neighbor was made. and then, if you had1n%( f decision, as you really did last month, that the neighbor's appeal was in error, and that mr. sanchez had made the right decision we would already have had a 30 day 311 period and a request for a hearing. and after the hearing you had a month ago, there would have been time to have an actual planning commission hearing before the n mt of the extension period, again which was 30 days after your last hearing. once again, the 3111 could have gone out when the neighbor made the appeal, she could have filed it there could have been an acknowledgement that there was a right for a hearing, and then all mr. sanchez had to do was hold on from calendaring that hearing uijpñm after you made
your decision. after you made your decision that her appeal had no merit, he could have had a planning commission hearing week later, week after that any time in the next four weeks,/%($s÷ before the 30 days had elapsed. he chose not to. as the disability attorney wrote -- i'll let david speak. come on, david. sorry. why don't you say -- we have only 30 seconds. >> no. i just wanted to say that the reason the last time the board made for the extension were made for me, there has never been an extension on my behalf -- >>18ja[@itju disability. >> for disability. it was always based on neighbors or appeals% th%(úf&)q so those were the other extensions and those outlined in scott's letter. >> thank you. >> supervisor chiu: is there a problem with the)?jpnm overhead?
you had something you wanted to display. no. so can we just ask you to put that back on the overhead for a minute and we'll see if the folks at sfg-tv can have that image broadcast. seems like there may be a problem. let's
>> president hwang: thank you mr. sanchez. we can hear from ms. stott now. and i think you can take that off the overhead now. >> good evening,gc i don't have a whole lot to say. i stand by what i wrote in my briefs and what i said the last time. i believe that the planning
department has been more than generous with david. i believe a lot of the delays were of his ownfpa÷ making. the original appeal was because he was running a hotel. and the use of the building, no matter -- no longer matched what was on the permit, which was a threexo!,a+xg9i6náu residential building. as far as me6f work on the 311, i'm not3:zp0ñ quite sure exactly what 311ó understanding is when david filed an appeal before i filed mine asking for -- saying he needed more time, in case he needed more time, it was kind of in reserve, but my understandingm:( #7> was he filed an appeal, the work stopped. and in fact, when i went down and filed that appeal, i was told that the work had already been stopped -- or any motion, forward motion had already been
stopped because of the appeal david had filed -- i think -- i don't know if it was a week or a number of days before my appeal. i think he'seg time. i think he was given back all the time that he attributes to the neighbors and the planning department wasting his time,?fpád basicallyh#( af. and as far as needing the garage to accommodate his disability, he's been renting it out i know he's been renting it out, because it's right next to my living room window, and i see the cars that's recently been rented out to the same person for about three months. he wasn't there thisi whetheri building or gone home for the holidays or i could have just missed it, not seen it. i actually have an ad here, which -- i don't know if i -- do i just put this -- i don't think you could read it even if i put
it down because the writing's so small but it's an ad from david's own website, welcome homezp'( ç3 properties, or -- i can't read it because i don't have my reading glasses but it's his own welcome home rental properties is theis the name of5o ly÷ it. at the bottom where he lists all the amenities underneath he has free parking available on the street. right below that he has parking space behind home available for rent. so saying he needs this parking garage because to accommodate his disability is false. he rents it out. and -- okay. i don't believe that -- i believe that the planning -- the commission made decision when we were here on the 24th. thank >> president hwang: thank you. mr. sanchezo?b!ñ.
>> thank you. good afternoon, president3dp@ hwang scott sanchez, planning department. as a reminder this is a letter of determination appeal relate toll validity of a variance decision letter issued on november 10,j@ro 2005 so a little over seven years ago. that was to allow construction of a garage in the required rear yard of the subject property. at the time we reviewel" building permit application it was stated that theétb6)ñ property was ;f the building permit for the the garage was actually issued and appealed to this board. the board of appeals denied that permit because ñ weññ% 6 overwhelming evidence that the building was usedcf::>÷ group housing. t™ come through and achieve+0%( "ñ a building permit or received a building permit16p to legalize that use. now try to come back and go through this process.c7 yyou know maybe% understood the board's intention and i apologize if last hearing but the board
didn't wantx8b3% to extendq4"bh it past november 23 rd extension ,÷ we had given and no extension of thejpe0 board pn[ is final until a decision is issued and that's why i did not feel comfortable having the process continue during the rehearing request period because anyone could have -- the party could have filed the rehearing request. also, to be clear, it's not about getting the 311 neighborhood notification done, it's not about havingd!r a&g discretionary review hearing by the november 23 date, it'sf:qc><ñ having thea!láñ permit issued which is a much more com you go through the building department other agencies for review. yes, i mean i think thatr9,,<' there's very much impossible for building permit to have been issued in that amount of time but i did not feel it appropriate to have the notice go out at that time without having the board have their final action. so if 2ññ the board -- if it is your intention to extend this to
allow this variance to still be valid, then i would suggest that you would take rehearing and probably extend itag-ew forx years because that would be the length of time probably in order to go through the process just to be sure we're not back here again. but if it's the board's intention that enough kind of discretio.v-,,;n been shown by the zoning administrator and continuing out this decision letter, which was againñx÷ issued seven years ago, and it required issuance of the building permit within three years of that date. so we0+8bfñ are at four years over from when they should have received their building permit application. so that summarizes ourmdu arguments. defer to the board and how you feel.s+( /& if you feel the variance is still valid6rc extendingt]d! of time a year at least. but if you feel theukpxñ variance is due you could deny3,b( the hearing request and they would have to come in for aj, request for the application. i'm available for questions.
thank you. >> president hwang: is there any public comment on this item? please step t7 [ good evening, distinguished commissioners, la crishiaz÷ row. i've owned my property since 1989. this is a very narrow street. homes are so is close together that any existing open'( space between buildings is precious and must be preserved. adding an elevator garage to our narrow street will not only remove such a space but also increase traffic. the fact that david nale is requesting a rehearing should be a red flag to you that this appellant including wastings%hyv your time and city dollars to move his+ p!y project forward. even scanning his lengthy letters one can(y excuses and every reasono or false,%t8b to
his own -- he has onlyñ' purpose, and that is it's a means to put as much money in his pocket as possible. why else would he want to build an elevator parking garage. he doesn't live innv to?. my knowledge. and so his disability is no excuse8; :ñ. so it wouldn't be for his personal use. that's why despite his disability. he has no consideration for how thisí neighbors or what is best for the neighborhood. please don't give him his request any consideration. thank you veryq6( sí much. >> president hwang: thank you. next speaker please-( hí.
>> my name is ann thornton and i am making these statements as i have an interest in the unit across the street, 129 and 131 fillmore street. and i would like to argue against giving more time on this garage. on 20 -- 10-24 the board -- thiferred extension to construct his garage. appellant is claiming his disabilities justify construction of the garage and explain why p4he's taken so long to move on[" our position is that the reason he did=" project was not due to his disabilities but working on his illegal conversion of a three unit building to a hotel a change he got approved after the fact of they& controversial before the planning commission in september 2011. when the commission split on the ex-facto approval of the post
conversion of his building to an sro. by the way it was not a unanimousgzj9 hearing. our reasons for joining appellant !z deborah stott and reviewing the variance are these. this building permit was based on the assumption that the three story automatic garage was a separate structure and added that if itj9k% strcj"eñ the building permit was issued in error. in fact this garage is to be built one inch fromo i$ñ 124-128 fillmore street a pre1899 flat that is 11 feet wide and has only a brick foundation. the vibration of the noise from the large electrical motor is something to be considered in building so close to another house with a brick foundation. the second major problem with this elevator project besides the structuralx is that such a project is not consistent with the current transportation and planning policies ofpolicies city of san francisco.
this neighborhood where the proposed project is planned is part of the octavia market rto residential transit orientation. even contemplate having a garage through the structure of their historic houses and no house or apartment building in this area is required to offer parking. curb cuts and graves are now discouraged and living streets -- such as germaneia street. the proposed placement of new garage must take into account any negative events on existing dwelling units on the ground floor and in the case of this garage the effect on second and third floor. basically san francisco, we changed our attitude. i believe in this -- of the city and each more inappropriate than it was when it was proposed a number of years ago. thank you. >> president hwang: thank you. is there any other public comment? okay. seeinji%bxñ none, then commissioners,
the matter is submittedxj . >> vice president fung: commissioners, it was -- in reviewing the briefs on the rehearingzwn clear toq"t&xme at least from my1?ég/ point of view,qf) / that the extension was related to the acquisition of the permit, and not forse 311. the question of the 311 and the permit scheduling came upñepz during the course of that hearing, and it was -- as far as i'm concerned, not new information. therefore i will not support a rehearing on.%($ >>?q 7ñ do you have a motion, vice president? >> vice president fung: i'm going to move to deny the
rehearing request. >> i can call the roll. on that motion to deny the request president hwang, aye. commissioner hurtado, aye. commissioner lazarus, aye. commissioner honda, aye. >> that is passed and notice ofa decision will b┘:z(5 issued tomorrow. thanky,9khó you. item 4(b) is another rehearing request at 498 hoffman avenue a letter from2b:y allen sowle appellants requesting rehearing of appeal 12-117 decided november 7, 2012. at that time the board voted"8btw iho 2-1-2 vice president fung dissented commissioner hurtado absent on the basis that there was no error or -- three out of
four votes required to be overturn a modified action whenéd!elc"p% a vacancy exists letter ofy determination was upheld by law. the regarding the legal dwelling unit. my understanding commissioners hurtado and honda have reviewed the video there for this hearing and are >> that's correct. >> good evening. my name is alan sowle. we're here because extraordinarybb:z<éf";f circumstances exist and rehearing is needed to prevent injustice because new acheddgg:z"y different facts and circumstances have been discovered relevant to the hearing officer's determination on thiso p0ñ matter. you might remember, those of you that were here before, that this was a -- the originalv of noe valley. in 1988 a building permitted was issued to reduce this from( rv three
units down to two units. and a notice of special restrictions were recorded but recorded against the>c9kñz the wrong property description so that my clients, when they bought the property some years later, had no notice of the notice of special restrictions reducing the property building count from three units to two.ap3y since ouruaüearing we discovered pg&e documents clearly showing that after that notice of special restriction wasoa recorded and after the building permit wasés%( issued reducing it from three k,8ñ units to two units pg&e was issued permits to install four electrical meters on the property, three gas meters on the property and we alsoy:::wx have uncovered, from the department of building inspection records,? .b its own certificate ofm?g completion and occupancya nzl in 1980 -- excuse me, in 1999, years following the previous@$jpd
owner's building permit reducing it from three units to two. i'd like to show you this, if i could. this:jp$e÷ document clearly says the certificate of final completion of occupancy dwelling unit three. you can see right<::zw÷ here. because of these new facts -- >> vice president fung: can we see that again please. >> yes, sirct three dwelling units. >> vice president fung: i'm looking for the date. september >> 1999. >> vice president fung: okay. >> because of this, because of these new items of evidence we think a rehearing isá%($ñ necessary so this matter may be fully1ojp$át adjudicated and the truth arrived at to determine this matter more accurately. extraordinary circumstances exist because tenants are going to lose theirc
residence if we don't have a rehearing on this matter. thank you very!09k&2 much. >> vice president fung: onenwk,,aq additional question. on your brief, the way the pagination occurred, i'ms assuming that on page 6, the fourth electrical meter was cjéñe 1f that correct? >> yes. and no gas meter for that. >> and i have a$@%( and these documents the pg&e documis'8da that you're referring to, these could not have been obtained prior to this why? >> we were tryingm6nnz1ñ for a long time to get pg&e documents. they were requesting a subpoena. we were trying to explain to them that the board of appeals. we hadqz8b noy subpoena and it was through extraordinary measures, letters, phone calls that we were able to get the pg&e records fromúñ1k,oóm. >> when did you receive them?
>> i got them twot4 >> thank you. >> any other questions? thank ("ç you. >> president hwang: mr. sanchez. >> thankxh scott sanchez, planning department. just to note, the hearing that we had on this item was on november 7. the rehearing request was filed on our response would have been due on november 26, which is the same day that8& appellant received information from pg&e, at least that's what the records are dated so we did not receive the -- m0jpd until earlyb'( o0 1"ujttjt 4, after we had our ability to submit a response. first pg&e records are not evidence of a legality -- or of a legal unit. the appellantm.nív÷ has stated they bought the property in 1997. at the time they bought it, it was a four unit building. however i would note according to records they provided the4( -<
fourth electric meter wasn't added untilu0 for each electric unit, would they argue they have four units on the property? i think that's an open question. again it's not evidenc%i í=ñ of a legal unit. we go by the records of the building inspection. as stated inaj hearing we believe there was an error in the records. there was a cfc4#b!ñbç issued to reduce the number of units from three to two. the reduction of number of units was required in order to subdivide the lot and to create new housing. so there are new buildings that were built, two unit buildings that were built on subdivided lots. reduction in the units from three to two was a requirement and stipulation of that. it n lot number. that lot number was super seeded seeded subdivision of the lot. that's where that issue came up. it is clear from the department
of building records that they have permits to go from three to two. there84ij two to three. the application that was referenced which we haven't seen 'til this evening that stated 1999hxjo that building permit application, as wasrpjlb noted in our initial appeal brief was to add new door and dormer -- roof area, replace window. it noted there code building department occupancy code aree doesn't mean three units,o$jd#that means a one or two unit building. i can understand the confusion because thatch interpretation of the appellant which in fact there this is a one or two unit building. that proves our position that it was in fact3&b $r a two;ojmg unit building. also i would note building use was filled out as a one family dwelling. if they can provide evidence ofó0::8 y a building permit=,bfm application reviewed by the san francisco planning department and approved at ajkb!f dwelling unit which
wouldn't have been allowed because the zoning would have limited it to two units(jp/i but had!jpdq third unit been allowed it would haveze+v3i required neighborhood notification, they have would have had to meet requirements for open:: space, exposure, parking. there'sg0 with that i'm available for any questions. thank you. >> vice president fung: were you aware of that 1999 permit? >> yes. it was referenced, and i included a summary of that in our appeal brief for the initial hearing. and i know that the -- they're relyingz/g third unit. and at the previous hearing we specifically asked them for evidence that they have a permit to that there was actually -- it was clear they did get a -- report when they acquired the property it was clear from the permit history that it was two units at the time they acquired it. >> vice president fung: i don't recall seeing that 1999 permit that he put on the overhead. >> i included a summary of it. we haven't actually seen the
actual permit that isl# but i did include a< theg9k3, building department records in our appeal brief. thank you. >> thank you. is there any public >> vice president fung: how about building!x they want to commentqjpb7 on that'2jpd permit? >> if you havei it's not mandatory. >>7/16 the certificate of final1&c completion that was brought up on the overhead, i'd like to see the permit that goes with that because i think that permit, as mr. sanchez rightly stated, that permit should have went from two units to three units. and there's just so much confusion with this but it doesn't seem it's right that certificateé# of final completion. i contacted>fv3d after the hearing and offered him through the building department unit verification process which usually is more in
depth. it brings up water department records, city assessment records, all of the building&f9iú departments so we can lay it out and see what we have. from what i've seen on the brief at the previous hearing we don't have a full picture here and there's obviously -- i can see errors with the permit -- the application, and the cfc where we had axj v single family é3 on the application, a nn-q cfc permit that says three units. so it needs to]lb be cleared up, but -- and i offered him to go through the unit verification. so i'm available -- >> thatqd,bc offer accepted? >> yes i believe -- >> vice president fung: and the results? >> we haven't started itç1 >> whenç<-(dój was the hearing? what was the date of the -- >> we're actually meeting tomorrow morning. >> but when was the prior hearing? i can't remember. nof 7.1q1 and you offered it the day after andhe tomorrow? >> yeah. it's a little differenty'nnñh from --

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)